Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 48
`Entered: March 31, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`37 C.F.R. § 318(a)
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition to institute
`an inter partes review of claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15–18 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`1 This proceeding has been terminated with respect to one of the original
`petitioners, Dell Inc., and a petitioner by joinder, Apple Inc. See Paper 46.
`
`
`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 48
`Entered: March 31, 2021
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAMSUNG DISPLAY CO., LTD.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`____________
`
`Before SALLY C. MEDLEY, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
`JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Final Written Decision
`Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable
`37 C.F.R. § 318(a)
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Samsung Display Co., Ltd. (“Petitioner”)1 filed a Petition to institute
`an inter partes review of claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15–18 of U.S. Patent
`
`
`1 This proceeding has been terminated with respect to one of the original
`petitioners, Dell Inc., and a petitioner by joinder, Apple Inc. See Paper 46.
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`No. 6,072,450 (Ex. 1001, “the ’450 patent”). Paper 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”).
`Solas OLED Ltd. (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7
`(“Prelim. Resp.”). Taking into account the arguments presented in Patent
`Owner’s Preliminary Response, we determined the information presented in
`the Petition established that there was a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner
`would prevail in challenging at least one of claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15–18 of
`the ’450 patent, and we instituted this inter partes review as to all challenged
`claims. Paper 9 (“Dec. on Inst.”).
`During the course of trial, Patent Owner filed a Patent Owner
`Response (Paper 20, “PO Resp.”); Petitioner filed a Reply to the Patent
`Owner Response (Paper 26, “Pet. Reply”); Patent Owner filed a Sur-reply
`(Paper 28, “PO Sur-reply”). An oral hearing was held on February 9, 2021,
`and a transcript of the hearing is included in the record. Paper 43 (“Tr.”).
`We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This decision is a Final
`Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) as to the patentability of claims
`1–9, 11–13, and 15–18 of the ’450 patent. For the reasons discussed below,
`we hold that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence
`that claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15–18 are unpatentable under § 103.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`The ’450 Patent (Ex. 1001)
`A.
`The ’450 patent, titled “Display Apparatus,” describes a passive
`matrix type electroluminescent (“EL”) display apparatus including parallel
`cathode lines, parallel anode lines perpendicular to the cathode lines, and an
`organic electroluminescent layer between the cathode lines and anode lines.
`Ex. 1001, [54], 1:6–7, 1:14–20. Applying a positive voltage to the cathode
`lines drives the organic electroluminescent layer, and the display apparatus
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`displays an image corresponding to the applied voltage. Id. at 1:20–24. The
`’450 patent explains that the organic electroluminescent layer “can emit light
`at a high instantaneous luminance by applying a high voltage to the organic
`EL layer” but, due to this, “the organic EL layer can easily deteriorate.” Id.
`at 1:38–41. The ’450 patent further explains that the larger the number of
`anode lines and cathode lines, the greater the possibility of crosstalk in a
`passive matrix type electroluminescent display apparatus, which makes it
`difficult to display a highly precise image. Id. at 1:42–46.
`The ’450 patent describes a conventional active matrix type display
`apparatus to address the above problems. Id. at 1:47–49. The display
`apparatus is depicted in Figure 22 of the ’450 patent, reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 22 “is a plan view of a display apparatus according to the related art.”
`Id. at 5:12–13. The display apparatus includes pairs of thin film transistors
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`that include selection transistor T1 and drive transistor T2 and confer a
`voltage storing capability on pixels. Id. at 1:49–51. The ’450 patent states
`that transistors T1, T2 can be thin film transistors. Id. at 1:58–59.
`The display apparatus further includes an organic EL layer 106 that is
`arranged to not overlap transistors T1 and T2 so that light emitted by the EL
`layer 106 is prevented from entering thin film transistors T1, T2. Id. at
`2:23–27. The ’450 patent explains that “[i]f the emitted light entered the
`thin film transistors T1 and T2, unnecessary photoelectromotive force would
`be generated in the channel regions of the thin film transistors T1 and T2,
`which entails the possibility of the thin film transistors T1 and T2
`malfunctioning.” Id. at 2:27–32.
`An object of the ’450 patent is “to provide a display apparatus which
`has a light emitting area enlarged so as to emit light at a satisfactorily high
`luminescence even though a voltage applied to an EL layer is low, and
`which has a long luminance life.” Id. at 2:66–3:3. Another object of the
`’450 patent is “to provide a display apparatus which prevents light from
`entering active elements such as transistors, to thereby avoid the malfunction
`of the active elements.” Id. at 3:4–7. An embodiment of such a display
`apparatus is shown in Figure 1, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`
`Figure 1 “is a plan view of an [sic] display apparatus according to one
`embodiment of the present invention.” Id. at 4:28–29.
`The ’450 patent states that display apparatus 1 includes “a substrate 2,
`an n-channel transistor Q1, an n-channel transistor Q2, [and] an organic EL
`element 3.” Id. at 5:25–33. According to the ’450 patent, “[i]n the entire
`display area, an organic EL layer 16 is formed on the cathode electrodes 15
`and the interlayer insulation film 14, and a transparent anode electrode 17.”
`Id. at 6:39–41. The ’450 patent further explains that “each EL element 3
`emits light over the entirety of one pixel area” and “cathode electrodes 15
`are formed of MgIn which reflects light.” Id. at 7:66–8:47, 8:49–50. Thus,
`“light emitted by the organic EL layer 16 when a voltage is applied between
`the anode electrode 17 and the cathode electrodes 15 comes out through the
`anode electrode 17 without leaking downward” and “the light does not enter
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`the selection transistors Q1 and the drive transistors Q2, and hence the
`malfunction of the transistors Q1 and Q2 due to the photoelectromotive
`force is avoided.” Id. at 8:50–57.
`In addition, the ’450 patent describes wavelength conversion layers
`having the photoluminescence effect of absorbing light of one wavelength
`from an organic electroluminescence layer and emitting light of a different
`wavelength. Id. at 11:47–65. As a result, “display apparatus 1 can easily
`display a full-color image.” Id. at 12:8–9. The ’450 patent also describes
`color filter layers that allow light of only a certain wavelength range to pass
`through. Id. at 12:28–48. In one embodiment, a color filter absorbs a
`wavelength range of light that excites a corresponding wavelength
`conversion layer so the wavelength conversion layer is not excited by light
`coming from outside of the display apparatus. Id. at 12:49–13:10. The ’450
`patent explains that with such an arrangement of wavelength range
`conversion layers and color filter layers, “the color purity of light going
`outside the display apparatus 1 is high.” Id. at 13:17–18.
`
`The Challenged Claims
`B.
`Petitioner challenges claims 1–9, 11–13, and 15–18 of the ’450 patent.
`Pet. 1. Claims 2–9, 11–13, 17, and 18 depend from claim 1, and claim 16
`depends from claim 15. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
`subject matter of the challenged claims:
`1. A display apparatus comprising:
`a substrate;
`active elements formed over said substrate and driven by an
`externally supplied signal;
`an insulation film formed over said substrate so as to cover said
`active elements, said insulation having at least one contact hole;
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`at least one first electrode formed on said insulation film so as
`to cover said active elements, and connected to said active
`elements through said at least one contact hole, said at least one
`first electrode being made of a material which shields visible
`light;
`an organic electroluminescent layer having an organic
`electroluminescent material formed on said at least one first
`electrode so as to cover said active elements and including at
`least one layer which emits light in accordance with a voltage
`applied to said at least one layer; and
`at least one second electrode formed on said organic
`electroluminescent layer which covers said active elements.
`Ex. 1001, 17:49–18:3.
`
`Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`C.
`Petitioner asserts the following grounds of unpatentability:
`Challenged Claim(s)
`35 U.S.C.2 Reference(s)/Basis
`1, 2, 4–8, 15, and 16
`§ 102(e)
`Utsugi3
`1, 2, 4–8, 15, and 16
`§ 103(a)
`Utsugi
`3
`§ 103(a)
`Utsugi and Manabe4
`9, 11–13, 17, and 18
`§ 103(a)
`Utsugi and Eida5
`
`
`2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to 35
`U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because
`the ’450 patent issued from an application filed before March 16, 2013, we
`apply the pre-AIA versions of the statutory bases for unpatentability.
`3 US Patent No. 5,670,792 to Utsugi et al., issued Sept. 23, 1997 (Ex. 1003).
`4 JP H05-3079 to Manabe et al. Citations to Manabe reference Petitioner’s
`certified translation of Manabe (Ex. 1004), unless stated otherwise. A
`Japanese language copy of Manabe was provided as Exhibit 1009.
`5 WO 96/25020 to Eida et al. Citations to the Eida reference are to
`Petitioner’s certified translation of Eida (Ex. 1005), unless stated otherwise.
`A Japanese language copy of Eida was provided as Exhibit 1010.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`Pet. 5. Petitioner relies on testimony of Adam Fontecchio, Ph.D. (Ex. 1007)
`(“Fontecchio Declaration”). Patent Owner relies on testimony of Richard
`Flasck (Ex. 2001) (“Flasck Declaration”).
`
`D. Related Proceedings
`The parties identify the following litigation involving the ’450 patent:
`Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00152-
`JRG (E.D. Tex.); Solas OLED Ltd. v. Dell Technologies Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`00514-ADA (W.D. Tex.); Solas OLED Ltd. v. Google Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`00515-ADA (W.D. Tex.); and Solas OLED Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:19-cv-
`00537-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Pet. 4; Paper 5, 1. The parties have informed us
`that there has been a jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas proceeding.
`Ex. 1019, 7:3–11, 7:21–8:3, 9:11–13. In that verdict, the jury determined
`claims 4 and 5 were invalid, and did not address the other claims challenged
`in this proceeding. Id.
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`A. Claim Construction
`In an inter partes review, we construe claim terms according to the
`standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–17 (Fed.
`Cir. 2005) (en banc). 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2019). Under that standard,
`we construe claims “in accordance with the ordinary and customary meaning
`of such claim as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art and the
`prosecution history pertaining to the patent.” Id. Furthermore, we expressly
`construe the claims only to the extent necessary to resolve the parties’
`dispute. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co. Ltd.,
`868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that
`are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200
`F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999))).
`In our Decision on Institution, we determined that we did not need to
`explicitly construe any claim terms at that stage of the proceeding. Dec. on
`Inst. 8. After the Petition was filed, the parties agreed on constructions for
`the claim terms “active elements” and “wherein said at least one first
`electrode has a rough surface which is in contact with the said organic
`electroluminescent layer” in Case No. 2:19-cv-00152-JRG (E.D. Tex.), and
`the district court in that case adopted the parties’ construction of “cover” and
`resolved the parties’ dispute as to whether the term “said active elements”
`necessarily mapped onto all active elements in a device. PO Resp. 8–9
`(citing Ex. 1012, Ex. 2006); Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1012, Ex. 2006).
`Moreover, during the instant trial, the parties agreed that we do not need to
`resolve any claim construction issues in order to resolve the challenges
`raised in the Petition. See PO Resp. 9; Pet. Reply 2–3.
`We determine that we need not explicitly construe any claim terms to
`resolve the unpatentability issues before us. See Nidec, 868 F.3d at 1017
`(“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the
`extent necessary to resolve the controversy’ . . . .” (quoting Vivid Techs., 200
`F.3d at 803)).
`
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`B.
`Factors pertinent to a determination of the level of ordinary skill in the
`art include “(1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems
`encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity
`with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and
`(6) educational level of workers active in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. v.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696–97 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic
`Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 1381–82 (Fed.
`Cir. 1983)). Not all such factors may be present in every case, and one or
`more of these or other factors may predominate in a particular case. Id.
`In our Institution Decision, we adopted Petitioner’s formulation of the
`level of ordinary skill in the art and determined that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art at the time of the invention “would have had a relevant
`technical degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Engineering, Materials
`Science, Physics, or the like, and experience in active matrix display design
`and electroluminescence.” Dec. on Inst. 9 (quoting Pet. 13) (adopting
`Petitioner’s formulation, which is supported by Dr. Fontecchio’s testimony,
`because it is consistent with the ’450 patent and the asserted prior art). In its
`Patent Owner Response, Patent Owner argues that a person of ordinary skill
`would need approximately two years of experience working in design and
`development related to active matrix organic light emitting diodes
`(“OLED”) displays, in addition to a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical
`Engineering, Physics, and/or Materials Science and Engineering or
`equivalent training. PO Resp. 7–8 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 30–31). Patent
`Owner also states, however, that its arguments in opposition to the Petition
`apply under Petitioner’s definition of the level of ordinary skill as well. Id.
`at 8. Accordingly, having considered the parties’ arguments and evidence,
`we maintain our determination from the Institution Decision adopting
`Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill in the art, as it is consistent with
`the problems and solutions in the ’450 patent and prior art of record. We
`also determine our decision would be the same under either side’s
`formulation of the level of ordinary skill.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`Principles of Law
`C.
`A claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if “the differences
`between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such
`that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
`subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406
`(2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
`factual determinations, including (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
`(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
`(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) when available, evidence
`such as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, and failure of
`others. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966); see KSR, 550
`U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
`any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
`controls.”).
`The Supreme Court made clear that we apply “an expansive and
`flexible approach” to the question of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 415.
`Whether a patent claiming the combination of prior art elements would have
`been obvious is determined by whether the improvement is more than the
`predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
`Id. at 417. Reaching this conclusion, however, requires more than merely
`showing that the prior art includes separate references covering each
`separate limitation in a challenged claim. Unigene Labs., Inc. v. Apotex,
`Inc., 655 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Rather, obviousness
`additionally requires that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the
`invention “would have selected and combined those prior art elements in the
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.”
`Id.
`
`D. Overview of the Asserted References
`1. Utsugi (Ex. 1003)
`Utsugi is titled “Current-Controlled Luminous Element Array and
`Method for Producing the Same” and relates “to a current-controlled
`luminous element array of an active matrix type such as for a display
`purpose, having multiple current-controlled luminous elements arranged in a
`matrix form.” Ex. 1003 at [54], 1:8–11. Utsugi’s Figure 5 is reproduced
`below.
`
`
`Utsugi’s Figure 5 is a sectional view of an internal structure of a picture
`element, according to an embodiment of Utsugi. Id. at 5:39–41. The picture
`element includes a luminescent element EL that “includes an organic thin-
`film layer 52 of a three-layered structure having a spacer layer 52C, an
`organic luminescent layer 528 and a hole injection layer 52A laminated in
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`this order over a glass base 50.” Id. at 6:37–41. Utsugi’s device further
`includes electron injection electrode 55. Id. at 6:47–54.
`Utsugi describes “[t]he luminescent element EL as a layered organic
`thin-film EL element extends over the capacitor C and the transistors QI and
`QS, covering substantially the entirety of the picture element region.” Id. at
`6:23–27.
`
`2. Manabe (Ex. 1004)
`Manabe is titled “Organic EL Element.” Ex. 1004 at [54]. Manabe’s
`Figure 1 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 1 “is a drawing showing an embodiment applying the present
`invention to an organic EL element with a two-layer structure.” Id. ¶ 34.
`Manabe describes an organic electroluminescent element that includes
`transparent electrode 2 and hole transport layer 4 that make up an organic
`electroluminescent layer, light emitting layer 3, and metal electrode 1
`“formed in order on the rough surface of a glass substrate 6.” Id. ¶ 26.
`Manabe’s Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`
`Figure 5 “is a partial enlarged cross-section drawing describing light
`interference of an organic EL element with a two-layer structure.” Id. ¶ 34.
`Manabe explains:
`Light emitted from one point of emission source P within the EL
`layer includes light from two sources, path A of light directly
`impinging on the substrate 6 in the drawings and path B of light
`reflecting off the metal electrode 1 and impinging on the
`substrate 6. The light from these two paths have light path
`difference L given by equation 1 and furthermore phase
`difference ηy given by equation 2 and mutually interfere.
`Id. ¶ 7. In view of this, Manabe describes:
`roughening of the surface of the organic EL layer in contact with
`the metal electrode or the surface of the metal electrode in
`contact with the organic EL layer causes slight differences in the
`light path from light sources within the light emission layer
`causing averaging of the interference effect and reducing angle
`dependence and film thickness dependence.
`Id. ¶ 24.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`In addition, Manabe states:
`In this manner, the interface of each layer is roughened to a
`degree as described above. As a result, there are different optical
`path variations from each of the light emitting points in the light
`emitting layer when seen from certain visual angles and is not
`constant. Therefore, interference effect is averaged, and changes
`in visual angle dependence in luminance and the light emitting
`spectrum and variation in membrane thickness are suppressed.
`Id. ¶ 31.
`
`3. Eida (Ex. 1005)
`Eida is titled “Multi-Color Light Emission Apparatus and Method for
`Production Thereof” and “relates to a multi-color light emission apparatus
`suitable for use in multi-color or full-color thin-type displays and a method
`for producing the multi-color light emission apparatus.” Ex. 1005 at [54],
`1:6–8.
`Eida’s Figure 5 is reproduced below.
`
`
`Figure 5 “is a schematic cross section that schematically shows the multi-
`color light emission apparatus (first invention) of the present invention with
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`an example using a color filter and a black matrix.” Id. at 8:1–3. Eida
`describes a multi-color light emissions apparatus that includes support
`substrate 2, organic electroluminescent element 1, transparent inorganic
`oxide substrate 4, fluorescent layers 3, and transparent substrate 8. Id. at
`9:22–24, 9:28–10:5.
`According to Eida, “a fluorescent layer should convert the light
`emitted from an organic EL element into light of a wave length longer than
`that of the light emitted from the organic EL element,” and fluorescent
`layers 3 “emit rays of fluorescent light of different colors . . . separately
`arranged on the same plane to obtain emitted light of the three primary
`colors (RGB).” Id. at 9:24–26, 10:12–13. Eida states that “[t]he installation
`of the fluorescent layer has the advantage that multi-color light emission
`which is higher in efficiency than in the case of installing a color filter can
`be anticipated.” Id. at 3:8–9. Eida further describes that “a color filter 9a
`may be arranged on each of the fluorescent layers 3 to control the
`fluorescent colors and thereby to promote the color purity.” Id. at 10:15–16.
`Eida depicts another embodiment in Figure 13, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`
`Figure 13 “is a schematic cross section that schematically shows the multi-
`color light emission apparatus (second invention) of the present invention
`showing another embodiment that uses a transparent adhesive, transparent
`fluorescent layer protective layer, color filter, and a black matrix.” Id. at
`8:31–9:2. The multi-color light emission apparatus includes a transparent
`support substrate (not labeled in Figure 13), red color conversion fluorescent
`layer 3R, green color conversion fluorescent layer 3G, blue color filter 14,
`transparent and electrically insulating inorganic oxide layer 12, and organic
`electroluminescent element 1. Id. at 37:11–38:2, 38:10–12.
`Eida explains that blue color filter 14 adjusts “the colors of light
`emitted from the organic EL element to improve the purity of these colors.”
`Id. at 38:10–12. Eida further explains that, in addition to the above
`structures, “a red color filter and a green color filter may be arranged
`between the red color conversion fluorescent layer 3R and the transparent
`substrate, and between the green color conversion fluorescent layer 3G and
`the transparent substrate respectively, thereby adjusting colors of light of a
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`red color and of a green color to improve purity of these colors.” Id. at
`38:4–8.
`
`Alleged Obviousness Based on Utsugi
`E.
`Petitioner argues that claims 1, 2, 4–8, 15, and 16 would have been
`obvious over Utsugi. Pet. 53–62. We have reviewed the evidence and
`arguments provided by the parties and are persuaded, based on the record
`before us, that Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`evidence that claims 1, 2, 4–8, 15, and 16 would have been obvious over
`Utsugi.
`
`Claim 1
`“a substrate”
`“active elements formed over said substrate and driven by
`an externally supplied signal”
`Petitioner contends that Utsugi discloses these limitations because
`“glass base 50” is a substrate upon which the EL element is built (Pet. 22
`(citing Ex. 1003, 6:37–40; Ex. 1007 ¶ 75)), and current-controlling transistor
`QI and switching transistor QS are active elements formed on top of glass
`base 50. Pet. 22–23 (citing Ex. 1003, 6:19–23, 7:20–45, Fig. 5; Ex. 1007
`¶¶ 77–78). Petitioner also contends that switching transistor QS is driven by
`the external signal from scan electrode line 3N+1, while current-controlling
`transistor QI is driven by the external signal from the signal electrode line
`1M. Id. at 23 (citing Ex. 1003, 7:9–12, 8:11–16, Fig. 3; Ex. 1007 ¶ 79).
`Patent Owner does not present any argument with respect to these
`limitations. Based on the evidence presented, we are persuaded that Utsugi
`teaches these limitations.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`“an insulation film formed over said substrate so as to cover
`said active elements”
`Petitioner contends Utsugi discloses an SiO2 layer covering transistor
`QI, and contact hole 56B formed in the SiO2 layer so as to allow contact
`between electron injection electrode 55 and drain electrode DQI of QI. Pet.
`24 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 5, 7:46–51; Ex. 1007 ¶ 83). Petitioner provides an
`annotated version of Utsugi’s Figure 5, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 5 is a sectional view of an internal structure of a picture element
`according to Utsugi’s first embodiment; the annotated version of Figure 5
`adds yellow highlighting on the upper SiO2 layer, and text stating that the
`upper SiO2 layer is “formed over transistors (QI and QS) and substrate (glass
`base 50).” Pet. 25. Petitioner acknowledges that transistor QS is not visible
`in Figure 5, and therefore Figure 5 does not depict the insulating film
`covering this transistor. Pet. Reply 4.
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`
`Petitioner contends that it would have been obvious to form the SiO2
`layer to cover QS because Utsugi’s disclosures show that the SiO2 layer is
`deposited over the array after QI and QS have been formed, the purpose of
`the SiO2 layer is to form an insulation layer, and a person of ordinary skill in
`the art would have been motivated to leave the insulating SiO2 layer in place
`above QS, just as it is above QI. Pet. Reply 9 (citing Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 168–170).
`Petitioner further contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`have understood “that it would have been obvious, if not necessary, to
`include an insulation layer” over both transistors QS and QI, in order to
`prevent the metal layers of the transistors from coming into contact with
`electron injection electrode 55, which would cause them to short circuit.
`Pet. 53–54 (citing Ex. 1003, Fig. 4; Ex. 1007 ¶¶ 168–170). According to
`Petitioner:
`Using Utsugi’s SiO2 insulation layer to provide the insulation
`above transistor QS would be the most natural and
`straightforward implementation of Utsugi’s disclosures: it
`would entail simply not undertaking an undisclosed and
`unnecessary additional step of patterning or masking the SiO2
`insulation to remove it from the area above transistor QS.
`Pet. Reply 9–10.
`Petitioner also argues that including an insulation layer over both
`transistors would have been predictable and nothing more than applying a
`known technique to a known device, as evidenced by the ’450 patent’s
`teaching that related art at the time of the invention made use of a
`passivation film that covered both transistors. Pet. 55 (citing Ex. 1007
`¶ 169). Petitioner relies on the ’450 patent’s description of the related art in
`Figures 22 and 23, which states that the thickness of passivation film 104 is
`
`
`
`20
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`set at such a value to “prevent the occurrence of a parasitic capacitance in
`the thin film transistors.” Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 2:53–56).
`Patent Owner contends that Utsugi’s SiO2 layer does not necessarily
`cover transistor QS, because different materials or techniques could be used
`in forming Utsugi’s structure, in order to insulate the electrodes of QS and QI.
`PO Resp. 12–13 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 54–55). In response to Petitioner’s
`rationale as to why it would have been obvious to use Utsugi’s SiO2
`insulation layer to provide the insulation above transistor QS, Patent Owner
`contends that the “undisclosed” and “unnecessary” masking or patterning
`steps that Petitioner asserts would be avoided by modifying Utsugi are
`“already present in the process disclosed in Utsugi, meaning that no
`‘undisclosed’ or ‘unnecessary’ steps are required.” PO Sur-reply 5 (citing
`Ex. 2001 ¶ 54).
`Patent Owner further contends that Petitioner’s reliance on Figure 23
`of the ’450 patent is improper hindsight because there is no evidence that
`Figure 23 was actually known in the prior art. PO Resp. 13 (citing Ex. 1001,
`1:47–49; Ex. 2001 ¶ 56); PO Sur-reply 6. According to Patent Owner,
`insulation film 104 of Figure 23 “does not have a ‘contact hole’ as this
`limitation requires,” and the Petition does not explain how a contact hole
`would be formed in the insulation film or “how that contact hole could
`connect the ‘first electrode’ to the ‘active elements,’ as required by the ’450
`patent claims.” Id. at 13–14 (citing Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 56–57).
`Based on the evidence presented, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s
`arguments to the contrary as discussed above, we find Petitioner has
`demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would have modified Utsugi so that the SiO2 layer covers both
`
`
`
`21
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`transistors QS and QI, and satisfies this limitation. We find persuasive
`Petitioner’s rationale that a person of ordinary skill would have understood
`that insulation above transistor QS would have been necessary to prevent a
`short circuit across QS; indeed, both parties’ experts agree on this point. See
`Ex. 1007 ¶ 168; Ex. 1017, 155:8–16. We also find it persuasive, as
`Petitioner argues, that using the SiO2 layer to provide insulation above
`transistor QS would have been straightforward and efficient, because it
`would have avoided additional patterning and the SiO2 layer was already
`used to provide insulation above other structures. See Ex. 1007 ¶ 169.
`Patent Owner’s argument that a different insulating material could be
`deposited does not undermine Petitioner’s showing because Mr. Flasck did
`not articulate any reason why a person of ordinary skill would undertake
`such an additional step. See Ex. 1017, 156:6–21. And Patent Owner fails to
`adequately explain how Petitioner’s proposed modification does not avoid
`the asserted additional patterning steps; Mr. Flasck’s testimony does not
`specifically address this. See Ex. 2001 ¶ 54; see generally Ex. 1017. We
`have also considered Patent Owner’s argument that modifying Utsugi by
`oxidizing transistor QS’s electrode in order to insulate it would have been an
`alternative modification that would not involve additional patterning steps.
`See Tr. 48 (quoting Ex. 2005, 98:25–99:20). Although Dr. Fontecchio’s
`testimony concerning oxidation of an aluminum surface during vacuum
`chamber deposition supports Patent Owner’s argument that there would have
`been alternative techniques to leaving the SiO2 layer in place in order to
`insulate the electrodes of QS, it neither persuades us that a person of ordinary
`skill would not have been motivated to use the already-present SiO2 layer to
`insulate QS, nor outweighs Petitioner’s evidence on that issue. In other
`
`
`
`22
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00140
`Patent 6,072,450
`
`words, one obvious modification to a reference does not exclude the
`possibility of other obvious modifications.
`We find Petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the
`evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified
`Utsugi such that this claim limitation is satisfied.
`“at least
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
